154 Replies to “Oscar Trial – Defense Heads of Argument”
Obviously, the best that money could buy. At the end of all this & after reams of testimony this is the bottom line. OP’s defense is: “I heard a noise & I killed a person.” The fact that this has gone on so long & that it is at this stage of debate is because of money. A very sad situation for the Steenkamp family who lost their precious daughter.
I see that the for the prosecutions case to be accepted all other REASONABLE INFERENCES must be excluded.
For example, although Saayman said he was surprised and would have expected RS stomach to contain less content than what it did the defence had 2 experts testify differently and even though they conceded under cross examination that Saayman may in fact have been correct it shoes that his inference was not the only reasonable one that could be made.
So I was thinking, based on that, how neutral are defence experts, they are on the payroll of the accused and actually dont even have to lie, they merely have to find another reasonable inference from the evidence but that doesnt mean the states case is inaccurate or false.
Yes, any alternative, reasonable inferences are always the goal of the Defense. But one other thing to keep in mind, there is an ear witness that heard a female screaming starting at 1:56am. That could further substantiate that Reeva was awake. Nel spoke of the “mosaic” that the evidence makes. This circumstantial case has to be considered in it’s totality. When it’s broken down in to individual pieces, it doesn’t tell the same story.
No, EVDM did not say screaming. She said a loud fighting voice of a female, as in an argument.
When did I say that Mrs VDM heard screaming?
You get 100 experts and 100 quasi-experts and you will always find a few loony “experts” and “quasi-experts” who will offer an alternate hypothesis that is entirely wrong. I work in a science related field and it happens all the time.
Here is retired High Court judge, Chris Greenland’s take on the case:
At the heart of this matter is the very simple proposition by the defense that OP should be excused criminal liability because he –
1. he acted out of fear
2. induced by a sound he heard in the relative security and sanctity of his own home in a relatively secure area
3.and that fear induced in him a conclusion that he was about to be attacked
4. and divested him of an appreciation of the reality that he actually was not in any danger and/or under any sort of attack
5. and induced him to fire on the Beki Cele basis of “Shoot to Kill”, i.e, when in some possibility of danger, shoot first.
Now NONE of these factors are currently supported in our (SA) law as a reason to be excused criminal liability.
a) on his own version he could only have concluded that there was an “intruder” in the toilet, as opposed to “an attacker in his personal space”
b) that intruder might well have been a street kid, as a reasonable possibility
c) you cannot just fire at an intruder on your property, i.e, as I said on Carte Blanche, you cannot just “execute an intruder”
d) before firing on another human being you MUST be under ACTUAL threat of imminent serious injury or death with no other recourse as to how to deal with the threat.
A. That is the situation even if you discard ALL the other evidence, i,e, chuck out the evidence of ALL the other witness, e.g, Michelle Burger, Johnson, the Stipps … etc … who state that they heard a woman scream ..etc …
B. So the above remains the case whatever Roux SC may succeed with “on the facts” in his argument to-day
C. it is possible that OP may escape liability …. but for that to happen the Court will have to make NEW law .. which it can do.
D. at the heart of that “new law” will be the proposition that the ordinary long established standard of the “reasonable man”, that is at the heart of our law, is modified when it comes to a disabled person.
E. this appears unlikely especially given the fact, eloquently adverted to by Prof James Grant, that, to do that, you have to gratuitously discount the fact that OP was very well aware of the circumstances in which you can fire on a human being, as evidenced by his gun licence test results.
Post Script: Roux has just said that he “genuinely believes that the trial should have been about culpable homicide” i.e, unlawful but UNINTENTIONAL killing.
The question that arises is why did the defense not tender a plea to culpable homicide?
.OP’s case would then have made a lot more sense.
A bit of interesting background about Judge Chris Greenland – he started life in an orphanage and went on to make history by becoming the first person of colour to be appointed a magistrate in the Southern African region.
I love how Oscar’s defense is based on him having been TREATED LIKE AN ABUSED WOMAN all his life. Poor Oscar, the penultimate victim. Maybe Reeva can be tried, convicted and sentenced posthumously for everything she did to Oscar, and for everything everyone else ever did to cause him to fire at a closed toilet door in the middle of the night.
When Roux went to the “Oscar situation is parallel to victim of Domestic Violence” I didn’t think I was hearing him correctly. When I listened closer and understood he was making that comparison I couldn’t believe it.
CLEARLY, he /OP’s family has to know that Masipa’s biggest social justice cause has long been domestic violence. That being the case, comparing OP’s life to that DV was a REAL shocker to me.
If they were pandering to her interest in the cause I think it failed MISERABLY. I know she won’t hold it against OP but, if was her, I would be REALLY ANGRY. Talk about a slap in the face to real victims of domestic violence. I hope she mentions it’s inappropriateness in her sentencing.
The comparison sucks on SO many levels. It doesn’t even make sense. It isn’t even like comparing a person who got a jolt from a wall socket to a person struck by lightning. Roux’s comparison was more like a person who has struggled with dyslexia being compared to someone who was thrown off a cruise ship.
Stupid and idiotic.
OP reading out RS Valentine Card to OP when (as far as I can tell) it wasn’t given to OP (in RS bag that was taken by OP family members from the scene of the crime) was also rather disgusting, especially since the defence team failed to say (as far as I can tell) that OP didn’t buy RS a Valentine Card (?).
I don’t think the gift/card that she gave him was in her purse that was taken. I think it was found on the counter in the house by police. There are photos of it. He claims that she asked him to wait until Feb 14 to open it. Of course, he killed her instead.
You’ll have to read my summary of Oscar’s testimony on the gifts, it was classic bumbling Oscar. Let me look to see which day it was and I’ll point you to it…
Ok, go to Day 17, April 8th. It’s about half way down.
He tried to sneak that in thinking it may strike a chord with Masipa as she is well known for her harsh sentences on crime against women.
I dont think she was impressed, she stopped him and asked him how it is relevant.
Reading sections 3 to 4 THE DEFENCE DENIES the State to consider the Facts together as a totality: saying each “proved fact” has to have one and only one reasonable inference (the states inference) otherwise that individual proved fact must be removed from the States case. They quote S v Blom.
If this is true then it would be impossible to prove any case that happened to be anything less than straightforward and carried out in plain view.
YES Clara, my thoughts exactly. Money cant buy you innocence, but it can buy a good lawyer and some time out on bail. If he is found not guilty, then surely we now can all get rid of ‘unwanted partners’ basis noise in another room coupled with heightened anxiety. Is this a precedence we want to set? I dnt thnk so.
Its interesting how Roux says OP was justified to be apprehensive and argumentative. It was Hilton Botha (police) fault. Really? Is anything seen to be bad ever his fault? How hard is it to admit just once and say, yes, its my fault, i was wrong or ill advised, i now know better. OP needs to take OWNERSHIP of his mistakes not blame others ALL the time.
This is what I think happened. Jealous row – reeva hit with cricket bat – chased upstairs – bleeding from cricket bat wound. Locked herself in toilet – screaming. Pistorius knows he has to kill her and try and cover it up. Otherwise lost career etc. gets gun – shoots until silence. Drags her out. Goes downstairs – plugs phone on charger. Gets black sacks and rope out. Formulates plan for stander to help him get body out. Wants to have body out and place cleaned up. Dr stipp arrives. New plan of intruder formulated.
The pathologist’s report said there were no blunt force injuries on her body so he could not have hit her with the bat. The only blood spatters were consistent with blood dripping from her hair as he carried her out.
It is however likely that he chased her into the toilet while threatening her with the bat and then got his gun when she refused to unlock the door and after he had attacked the door with the bat.
Reeva may have used that bat to get out of the bedroom…thus the bang marks on that door…when that failed she ran to the toilet…
From the Beeld —->
Oscar Pistorius’s aunt asked prosecutor Gerrie Nel if he “was not ashamed” at the paralympian’s murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria, according to a report.
The Beeld reported on Saturday that Lois Pistorius, glowered at Nel on Friday and asked in Afrikaans: “Kry jy nie skaam nie? (Aren’t you ashamed?),” Beeld reported.
According to the report it is unclear if Nel heard her because he was a distance away from her and had his back turned to her while he walked out of court.
On the list of people who went upstairs unattended I did not see OP himself-Clarice followed him halfway up and heard him in the bathroom.Also ,his sister Aimee-took Reevas bag from upstairs.Why were these people not on the list,as they actually did cross the scene.
Aimee and Carice were not upstairs unattended – they had an officer with them, I believe Van Staden (the photographer). Early the next morning, as Aimee and Carice got in their car to follow Oscar & the police to the station, Aimee decided that she better go back inside and take Reeva’s purse for “safe keeping” for Reeva’s family. She went back inside the house and took the purse off of the kitchen counter, which is downstairs. IMO, the police should not have let her back in.
I feel certain that you’re correct and I’m not but I could swear that Carice said that soon after she and her father got there, before anyone else was on the scene, she saw Oscar going up, knew the gun was up there and raced up to make sure he wasn’t going to kill himself? shoot them?
There was some mention of her hearing him walking on tiles – some commenters believing this may be when he switched out the phone that had been on the charger downstairs with the one that was on the bathroom floor. ( I probably read the second part here. Ha!)
I THINK she and Aimee went up there together later, austensibly to get Reeva’s purse. Cop(s) downstairs had asked where it was? Cop(s) were also upstairs?
Reeva’s bag/purse was in the kitchen, brought down by Oscar when the medics asked for Reeva’s ID, so it was easy for Aimee and Carice to just grab it. Oscar specifically said that he “did not go through the bag” when he was looking for the ID which I found rather telling. Why did he need to say that? What was in that bag!?
HOLSTER trouble for OP.
Where the Holster was found on the left side bedside drawers is a lovely bit of what is a killer for the DT.
We can only go by evidence that was given. The police were not accused specifically of tampering with that and no indication was made of it being out of place.
It’s place is thus not opposed by the DT in any of the evidence.
OP, claimed in his version, to drop it on the bedroom floor on his way to the passage after removing his gun from it. Clearly no one else , such as Reeva, could have been involved in where that holster ended up after OP dropped it.
That is the basic state of the evidence on that matter.
1/ Clearly the holster could not have accidentally been knocked from the floor and ended up inadvertently on the drawers. Only OP was present and must be intentionally responsible for its placement.
2/ Clearly OP has lied on this matter and the only REASONABLE INFERENCE that can be made in one regard is that there had to be a reasonable level of light in the bedroom at the time of the holsters placement on the drawers by OP.
OP’s version collapses on many levels from that ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE.that arises from that portion of evidence.
keen observers will remember NEL saying “good” when OP clearly spoke of dropping the holster on his way to the passage.
In my opinion as a layperson, this statement is another attempt by Roux to introduce/reinforce lots of minor convoluted detail, contradictions and repetitiveness… maybe to confuse and ‘take one’s eye off the ball’ from the bare basic FACTS. As I see it:
1. He kept a gun for personal security, close-to-hand, pre-loaded with black talon bullets and therefore had the intention to kill (not maim), if/when he ever had the occasion or desire to use it.
2. He shot 4 black talon bullets into a very confined space ‘knowing’ that there was a person in that space. Even if those bullets missed, there is a very high chance of death from ricochet’s. OP knew of this potential danger to himself if firing from the larger bathroom.
Even before OP was (apparently) aware that the toilet door was LOCKED he left the bathroom to look for Reeva, without knowing if the ‘intruder’ was still in a position to come and attack him or not.
I hope that the above two points alone, are enough to convict OP for pre-meditated murder.
That is an excellent point you have made about Oscar leaving the bathroom to ‘look’ for Reeva firstly without knowing the condition of the fictitious intruder, and secondly without knowing that the door was locked.
Though Roux gave a persuasive closing argument, more in his delivery than in the content lol, Oscar’s story is just too far fetched. The law is not on his side and I’m certain the judge will find him guilty of murder.
“We demonstrate in detail below that the crying
out loud heard by the immediate neighbours occurred at the same time as the screaming heard by the four State witnesses.”
That is a flat out false statement in the defence heads! How could what the next door neighbours hear be at the same time as the Berger/Johnson and Stipps if they did NOT hear the 1rst or 2nd set of gunshots???The screaming was in between the 1rst and 2nd set , The sounds of a man crying was AFTER he discovered what he had done…The entire chronology of calls and what the Stipp’s said surrounding their call was totally misrepresented and incorrect by Roux. I was surprised that Nel did not argue that at all…I knew that the first set of sounds heard by Merwe and the Stipp’s would come back to haunt the state’s case, because Nel never dealt with it during redirect with the Stipp’s.
Yes, it is a false statement. I don’t believe that Mrs VDM heard the first bangs, she heard the 2nd. She describes 4 bangs, silence, then shortly after a commotion, Oscar crying and cars arriving. She testified that the bangs occurred “sometime around 3am” that doesn’t mean exactly 3am.
Hi Clive, thanks. I will be digging in the Defense stuff this week and will gather as much info as I can find. The post should be up by mid-week, maybe sooner.
What does the defence mean in the following
62) The State cannot avoid or circumvent its responsibilities by making witnesses available, particularly when they are police witnesses.
From previous points the defence appears to be making a case that the State fails to call material witnesses to support certain claims by the State and that it would be unfair to expect the Defence to call these (police) witnesses “who may accommodate the State in cross-examination”. …. that the onus is on the State to call these witnesses and not the Defence.
The Defence claims
a1) first noises were the gunshots and second noises were the bat sounds
a2) supported by Colonel Vermeulen: door first perforated by bullets then damaged by bat
a3) supported by the Stipps calling first noises gunshots
a4) States use of selective witnesses – cannot be proven that screams (= crying out loud) between first and second set of noises due to a women especially when near neighbour husband corrected wife saying it wasn’t a woman’s voice but OP …
b) Proven lying by H Botha to incriminate OP of murder.
c) States fails to call material police witnesses that could have proven falsehoods in States case – where State claims only Col van Rensburg & H. Botha from the police were present in main bedroom prior to photographer.
Defence also states
69) OP fired as a reflexive response negating the guilty act & probably also criminal capacity
70) if not a reflexive response, it was putative private defence
71) OP not guilty of culpable homicide: conduct conformed with reasonable person with similar disability acting in same circumstances.
Defence Head of Argument
91.2: In S v Steynberg (supra), the Court of Appeal referred with approval to Maharaj v Parandaya 1939 NPD 239 where Judge Feetham at 243 held: “Some innocent people meet accusations by simply telling the truth. Others, who may be EQUALLY INNOCENT of the accusation, take refuge in some invented story, because they are not satisfied that the truth alone would be sufficient …
So basically the Defence is saying that if the Accused invents a story this alone does not mean that the Accused is guilty.
Ummm, like being coerced / tortured into signing a false confession?
At the end of the day, the prosecution as well as the defence, will only call witnesses that are able to advance their respective cases. Roux knows this very well and was just making a song and dance out of it. He was merely being strategical with his complaints. Why did he not call Permural, or whatever their pathologist’s name is, who was present at the postmortem?
Your client gave evidence on 15th april at approx 1 hour 8 minutes of the first session in which he placed himself inside the toilet cubicle within 2 minutes of the shots being fired.
The words involved being “A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT”.
That bit of evidence cannot be explained away as a slip of the tongue or a mistake as he provided a context of a short time interval and reasoning that makes it all clear. it is clear and sound evidence and that court can rely upon it in regards to it being what really happened.
I also add that this piece of your clients testimony was delivered near the end of his testimony and like much later evidence it must be taken as displacing previous conflicting claims made by your client in regards to that issue or other affected parts of his evidence. I also note that your client made no indication of this being said in error or being wrong or any following claims or parts of his testimony displaced this piece of evidence.
The court will take note of this part of your clients evidence and consider it fully and appropriately.
PART 2
Applying this piece of evidence to the 2 sets of bangs.
1/ the fatal set of gunshots are a safe source for one of the sets of bangs.
2/ if the cricket bat strikes are responsible for a set of bangs being heard and they occur after the shots then the second set of bangs has to be well under 2 minutes after the first set of bangs. THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.
3/If the cricket bat strikes did make a set of noises loud enough to
be heard by ear witnesses then they can only be the first set of bangs heard.
4/ It is plausible the cricket bat strikes did not make any noise loud enough to be heard by any ear witnesses and in which case they could have occurred either before the shots or well within 2 minutes after the shots, but no later, going by this part of OP’s evidence.
5/ If the first set of bangs were the fatal gunshots then there is no explanation for the second set of bangs. We can thus discount the first set of bangs as being the fatal gunshots.
6/ There is no problem with the second set of bangs being the fatal gunshots and this is the only conclusion that can be made.
PART 3
7/ Consider that OP has only 2 minutes to enter the toilet after the shots.
8/ Common cause is that the toilet door was locked from the inside etc (not my personal view though its fairly irrelevant in regards to this point).
9/ It is common cause that OP was on his stumps when he fired the shots at Reeva.
OP cannot mess about as he has to use the phone at 3.19 am to call Stander.
10/ Unless the door was previously damaged by a cricket bat strikes prior to the shots the time appears too tight to allow him to fetch and put on his prosthetic legs to wield the bat so unless pre-damaged then the cricket bat strikes at this time have to be from when he was on his stumps as Vermeulen testified.
I think you are pushing the meaning of the statement “A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT” too far – this is perceptual time under stressed conditions after having been not long been asleep (according to OP testimony)
Be happy as Johnson and Bergers evidence corroborates your client’s evidence in regards to shouting Help, Help, Help before what is known as the second set of bangs.
No doubt this part of the evidence will be accepted and recorded as fact to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of your client.
PART 2
Note also that OP claims memory issues in the period after the shots so may have shouted Help, help help, a second time after the shots and is unable to recall it.
Not to worry though Mrs Ng and Dr Stipp both report this , so with it being corroborated we can accept that as fact if we so wish.
Carise Stander also gave evidence of hearing your client shout help, help, help but is only able to guess at it being about 5 minutes before the 3.19 phone call to her father so it is unclear which set of help, help , help shouts she heard. Details are not clear enough to decide which way.
PART 3
The shouts of help, help, help before the fatal gunshots (second set of bangs ) clearly show planning and premeditation. No doubt this is most welcome news for OP that people agree on parts of his testimony and he that he will be rewarded appropriately.
Oscar shot Reeva earlier in the evening he was reinacting everything out ,the judge was correct the neighbours were confused it was him hitting the bat and him screaming butnthebshots were fired around 325 work out the time back to when he brought the fans in
I am reading the Defence’s Head of Arguments (up to page 62) and so far apart from one or two minor weaknesses their argument looks solid – and hence the State’s argument looks so far to be adequately rebutted. I have yet to read to the end but I am beginning to foresee that the Defence does have a proper case. I am beginning to suspect I am going to change my view to case unproven and possibly tragic accident and extreme recklessness.
I also entertained that, but that is because Nel failed to establish the correct timeline of events with the calls and sounds heard by the Stipp’s. Roux misrepresented that BIGTIME , listen to Stipp’s evidence again.
Dear Mr Roux,
Your defense witness Carise Stander has proved most helpful on a few issues.
Carise’s hearing appears to be very good as she indeed heard OP shout help, help, help, from further away from the source than anyone else.
It is also helpful that she listened at the door of the bedroom when your client (OP) was beyond the bedroom door for the sole purpose of collecting Reeva’s handbag and nothing else at all as he had no reason to do anything else.
it is noted that the state appears to not challenge this part of your clients evidence.
It is also noted that your client’s memory at the time was good enough and his mental faculties sound enough for him to fetch Reeva’s handbag. it is also noted though that OP did not give any evidence to exactly where he fetched the handbag from.
Carise claimed to hear your client walking on a tiled surface and it is noted that only 2 such areas exist beyond the bedroom door. These are the balcony and the bathroom.
Carise did not hear any sounds to account for the moving of sliding doors so the balcony option can be excluded. Additionally there is no trail indication to support his going there at this time and it is implausible for Reeva’s handbag to be kept or placed on the balcony.
We can thus conclude from what Carise heard that OP went to the bathroom at this time for the sole purpose of fetching Reeva’s handbag.
ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE that can be made is Reeva’s handbag was in the bathroom prior to OP fetching it.
###################
Carise’s hearing does appear to be very good. Hearing his footsteps in the bathroom while standing at the bedroom door proves this.
Carise does not report hearing the sound of any fans operating.
We can either conclude that the fans were very quiet in operation or switched off.
The fans not operating is what the police stated in their evidence so Carise’s evidence can be taken as corroborating the police version.
I wish I could find the line that Carice said during her testimony that I thought was “telling” but I can’t. Nel didn’t follow up on it. Maybe someone here knows what I mean.
While describing what she first heard from her bedroom, Carice said she only heard a man shouting/screaming, talked more about a few other things then said something like, “I definitely heard a man shouting [screaming?] and I thought to myself ‘I wonder what happened to the lady?'”
What lady? If she only heard a man, how would she know at that point that any lady was involved in anything?
Yip, I got that too. I am surprised that Gerrie Nel let the Standers off so easily under cross examination.
Up to page 133. I am satisfied that the first set of sounds were the gunshots and the second set of sounds were the bat strikes. I am satisfied that the cries between the first set of sounds and second set of sounds definitely included the help help help of OP, and that discrepancies exist in the witness testimony as to whether the higher pitched cries emanated from a female or from OP … and that taken together the most reasonable explanation of the circumstantial evidence was in fact all those cries were from OP and not RS who would have been shot to death after the first set of noises.
I am done with this now. I think the Judge has to find OP not guilty of knowingly killing (murdering) RS. I am satisfied by the Defence’s Head of Arguments – which I believe to be more inclusive of the evidence and more convincing than the States.
So I am convinced that OP believed he was facing an intruder … it is up to the Judge to decide whether he intended to kill the “intruder” or not. But I am satisfied by the Defence that OP didn’t believe it was Reeva behind that door … or at least the State hasn’t proven that OP knew Reeva was behind that toilet door beyond a “reasonable doubt”.
Are you throwing out the Stipp`s testimony? That they both saw the bathroom light on, heard both male and female voices before the second set of noises? Also, what noise caused him to fire? We know that OP is not beyond making stories up, like the highway shooting, and saying anything (even denying the impossible) to avoid taking responsibility. There are just too many questions unanswered to give him the benefit of doubt for me.
It`s gonna be so interesting to hear JudgeM call this one, it`s very tough.
When you’ve read and analysed 1000s of judgements, you realise that each side almost always does a good job of advancing great evidence and painting a picture of what “really” happened. Especially in commercial cases.
I think what gets missed in these discussions is the judge is always called upon to evaluate witnesses and decide what parts of their evidence will be accepted.
There is no reason to believe Stipps did not hear a woman, and that they saw a light on.
Read the Defences Head of Arguments and the youtube defences closing argument. Their argument has THE BATHROOM LIGHTS ON at around 3:15 am. It is part of their detailed timeline.
Jason, have you considered that the 1st sounds were heard at 3:00 and that Reeva only expired after 3:22? If 1st sounds were in fact the gunshots, Reeva would not have been alive at 3:22 – see both pathologists’ evidence about when death ensued after head wound.
Walda, as far as I can recall no exact time of death was given. The paramedics declared Reeva dead when they arrived on the scene and the pathologist said that death would have occurred moments after the head wound.
William, we do not know the exact time of death, but we do know that Oscar made phone calls before carrying Reeva downstairs, the last one being to Baba at 3:22. And we know from the arterial blood spatter that she was still alive when he carried her down and that she expired on the way down the stairs.
The Stipps said they heard the first sounds around 3.00am, followed immediately by screaming, and the second bangs at 3.17am. Burger/Johnson heard screaming from 3.00am until the shots at 3.17am but Roux has twisted the evidence to place the first set of bangs at around 3.12am which is simply not so. He deliberately interchanges what were described as “screams” and “loud crying/crying out loud” (big difference) to support this. It also seems that Oscar shouted “help, help, help” both before and after the shooting: the first time mocking/mimicking Reeva’s screams and the second time genuinely screaming for help after the shooting.
It is impossible that the first set of bangs were the gunshots if they occurred at 3.00am and that is why Roux has attempted to place them later because it would mean it took OP over 15 minutes to break the door down and then make phone calls for help. Yeah, right. Maybe he went down to the kitchen and ate some left-over chicken stir fry in between ….
The timeline is actually very simple and Roux has deliberately complicated it in an attempt to muddy the waters: bangs (cricket bat) at around 3.00am followed by Reeva’s screams until the gun shots at 3.17am.
But in the end none of this detail actually matters. OP pointed the gun at a person and shot them. You cannot simply execute an intruder in your home unless your life is directly threatened. There was no evidence of any direct threat apart from Oscar’s much-repeated “which I perceived to be someone coming out of the toilet to attack me”. With what? The magazine rack?
According to SA law, a minimum of 25 years in jail for murder (application for parole possible after 12 years) and life if the judge decides it was premeditated (possible application for parole after 25 years).
1.Stipp’s heard the male voice yell ” help help help” a few minutes AFTER the 2nd set of sounds (Listen again to Dr. Stipp’s evidence carefully , I did 3x.) He heard it after he hung up from his call to security (2nd shots done)and went back to his balcony.
Oscar testified he yelled for ‘help’ BEFORE getting the cricket bat. So those second sounds had to be the gunshots since according to OP he had not bashed the door down yet.
2. There is no way possible that Reeva did not scream. According to Oscar’s version, when he came down the passage yelling for her to call the police and to get out of my f house, she’s a woman who must have screamed something. When the second shot missed her , she screamed as well.
3. The Burger’s would not be able to hear a cricket bat banging 177 meters away . The sound is just not as loud as gunshots.
4. No one heard anyone scream BEFORE the first sounds. But according to OP he was screaming very loud, like he never did before , repeatedly to call the police and get out of my house.
5. According to the timeline that NEL should have established, the first sounds were at about 3 am…the second shots were at about 3:12 as per Anitta Stipp who is the only witness that actually looked at her clock , was awake and noted the time around which she heard them.. If the 3 am sounds were the gunshots, what was OP doing for 19 minutes ? he called Stander at 3:19???
6. Why were the bathroom lights “ON” upon hearing the first sounds when OP insists it was pitch dark??
Granted, Prosecutor Nel failed to argue Roux’s timeline and to explain what possibly could the first sounds heard be.
Many think that OP was banging on the door for Reeva to come out or to stop her from phoning the police. when she desisted he got so angry and got the gun to shoot thru the door.However this is of course not proven.
let’s not forget that both Dr. Stipp and Burger/Johnson heard a female screaming INTERMINGLED with another male voice that was at a lower tone at the same time…meaning 2 people in a very heated argument BEFORE the 2nd set of gunshots.
If Judge Masipi decides that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there were woman screams between the first and second set of noises – she will conclude OP murdered RS and her job (to make a judgement with explanation) will be easy. If the defence has twisted the evidence – then since all the evidence is before the judge and her team – then it will be an easy matter for her to “untwist” the evidence.
Let’s see what her judgement is.
She will find him guilty based on the transcript testimonies. I do agree with you that Gerrie Nel did NOT remove that doubt regarding the first shots maybe the real ones…he should have gone thru the stipp’s evidence to UNTWIST what the defence did. His job is to leave no lingering doubt and prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
OSCARS INADVERTENT CONFESSION TO MURDERING REEVA.
That little peach of OP’s testimony I have been posting about is actually an inadvertent confession.
“A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT”.
Read my 2 previous posts on this matter on this thread.
OP has to gain entry into the toilet within 2 minutes of firing the shots.
ie Bat strikes (if not carried out before), removal of upper door panel, finding the key, inserting the key, unlocking and opening the door etc.
That is all reacting to get into the toilet as quickly as possible.
BUT WHAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE OR ALLOW TIME FOR IS KEY.
why is there a rush to break through the door with haste? it is an intruder isn’t it?
One can think of no reason to act with such haste in regards to an intruder as surely ensuring Reeva is safe should come first!
But whats that!
No search for Reeva at all.
One can ONLY CONCLUDE that OP knew it was Reeva in the toilet so there is no need to search for her.
heads of arguments do not deal with evidence accurately or in depth.
AS the defence case was BUILT AND CONSTRUCTED to fit the prosecution evidence then it may appear to solve things until you dig deeper or take full account of the evidence.
TWISTING OF FACTS is something Roux does well though he lies as well in doing it.
2 bits of wood struck together do not make a great noise as claimed. They never provided proof as its a fictional claim.
OP does not scream like a woman as its a fictional claim and again no proof provided.
DEFENCE CASE is smoke and mirrors and that is all.
2 low sound producing cricket bat strikes (fact) do not equal very much louder and dissimilar 4 gunshots.
Upon that fact the defence case is totally destroyed.
3 first bangs were not the FATAL gunshots, and nor were they cricket bat strikes. OP knows but will not explain as it would be an admission of guilt.
Unless OP made the claim to shout like a female his defence was non existent. Hence he lies and cant produce evidence.
I am not going to argue with you because I am not going to repeat the Defence’s Head of Argument. Just a few questions: what woke all those witnesses up … why did neighbours phone security before the second set of sounds … when did OP use the bat and unlock the toilet door … OP started making phone calls from 3:19 onwards.
One more question to consider – how long does it take you to become alert after waking up … there was a lot of neighbours waking up early in the morning. Even OP according to his testimony had just woken up (if you consider his testimony might be true in the main). I think both the Defence & the State demonstrate some errors in the witness testimony.
These points are irrelevant as per Nel
Reeva was screaming. The lights were on. The she was shot and stopped screaming.
The Stipps heard all this.
The exact timing doesn’t matter but we know it approx from Stipp’s 16s call to Baba.
This is corroborated by the next door neighbours who were awoken by the shooting, heard no screams and got through right after Stipp.
Yes Anitta Stipp did check her clock that ran 3-4 minutes fast at the 2 crucial times of both sets of shots.The time of the first shots are a bit before 3 am and the second shots heard by her at around 3:13..Roux wants to fool the judge to think that the 3:12-3:13 shots were the first sounds heard! LIsten to both the Stipp’s evidence that clearly was misrepresented by Roux’s closing. I am shocked that NEL did not argue that at all…Nel is also wrong as he agrees that the second sounds were at about 3:16-3:17…not so…
What I will say is that the Defence’s Head of Arguments hangs together, seems reasonable, seems convincing and seems all embracing – it presents the circumstantial evidence as conflicting with some apparent clear errors and appears to present the most reasonable explanation of it in total. In comparison the States Head of Argument seems more selective and less inclusive of the evidence (direct and indirect).
However, if the Defence has twisted the evidence – then that is beyond me to analyse because I don’t have all the transcripts in front of me, all the court proceedings in front of me … nor do I have the time to go through it all if I did. That I assume will be the approach of Judge Masipi – evidence first (direct and circumstantial) followed by assessing the States and Defence’s Head of Arguments.
I think the case will rest (in terms of the murder charge specifically of RS) on whether it can be shown whether the first set or second set of noises were the gunshots, and whether the Defence’s timeline is reasonable.
With regard the “screaming” I thought the Defence in their Head of Argument put up a convincing case of conflicting testimony – some claiming it was a woman’s voice other’s claiming it was OP’s voice, some claiming it was blood curdling screams from a woman others claiming it was crying out loud of a male voice. The Defence only need to show that witnesses confused the same sounds to cast doubt that it was a woman’s voice … and to show that it would have been impossible with regard the timelines (if you believe their timeline).
The other thing to note this happened soon after many of the witness were woken from deep sleep or falling in and out of sleep – it was around 3 am in the morning – and all this was happening minutes to twenty minutes after waking from a (deep) sleep – when in general perception is 100%.
Phone records indicated that OP was on the phone from 3:19 am and was accompanied by neighbours by 3:22 am. The last set of bangs occurred around 3:16 to 3:17 am and neighbours were phoning in from around 3:15 am and before the second set of noises.
On a separate matter I think it has been shown that
a) OP has behaved recklessly in the past with guns
b) has been “jumpy at night” with regard to noises (former girlfriend testimony, interview of friend who stayed in the spare bedroom and who reported that after knocking over the fan in the early morning had OP in the bedroom gun in hand asking if everything was okay, OP’s own text message of confusing the washing machine or dishwasher for an intruder)
I think it hasn’t been shown whether he was capable of murder (e.g. killing pet cats when he was a kid etc). I think there is one text message out of 1700 of RS saying OP scares her at times.
I just want to say that if Judge Masipa decides
a) that the second set of noises were the gunshots then she will find OP guilty of murdering RS.
b) that there were indeed woman’s screams between the first and set of noises then she will find OP guilty of murdering RS.
If the evidence (direct and circumstantial) is so straight forward to determine a) or b) beyond a reasonable doubt then Judge Masipa will find for the State in next to no time at all.
If the Defence “twisting” of the evidence is obvious as some believe it to be – then it will also be obvious and clear to the Judge and her team – and again she will find for the State and determine OP guilty of murdering RS.
With regard the toilet lights being on I think it is only significant if it can be shown to be on immediately before the gunshots.
After the gunshots then OP turned the lights on at some point – so that he could see where the key was, see where Reeva’s phone was – and that happened after the gunshots. So according to the Defence the Stipps saw the toilet light on After the gunshots (first set of noises according to the Defence) and not before. Can anybody tell me when OP was supposed to have put the bathroom lights on according to his testimony?
I think you`re getting very confused. Stipps saw the light on right after the first noises, this is why Roux is so scared of them. Even if that WAS the shots, according to OP`s testimony he then backed into the bedroom, searched for Reeva, yelled on the balcony, put his legs on, ALL in the dark. It`s not possible. No matter how you look at it, Stipps evidence is damning to his version and cannot be ignored.
Indeed, that is why Roux is fighting so hard against their evidence. OP is damned either way because
a) If the defense claim the shots at 3:12, Mrs Stipp saw that the lights were on at 3:02 when she woke up, that totally destroys the statement that OP shot in the ‘pitch dark’
b) If the shots were at 3:02am, what was OP doing for the next 17minutes before he made the 1st call? Concocting a story?
Jason, OP does not recall when he put the lights on because they were always ON! The fan was not on and the small fan never moved from its corner! Blinds never drawn either…. Why would Reeva run into a small toilet and lock the door if the light was not working and she was in the pitch dark?? which ever way OP tries to slice it, he gets caught in his lies.
Hi Ruth, the Judge has to act fairly and be seen to act fairly – she has to consider the Defence’s version without bias – she CANNOT presume OP is guilty – she MUST consider the Defence’s Head of Argument and MUST take it seriously (as she must the States Head of Argument). Her judgement MUST be based on best use of Evidence, she must give an assessment of BOTH the Defence and States arguments and MUST EXPLAIN why she rejects one over the other. She HAS to use a NEUTRAL form of language and stick with Common Cause items, Direct Evidence, and assess Circumstantial Evidence (including OPs testimony) with caution.
Yes, I agree with you that the Judge must be unbiased and only look at all the evidence from both sides …but if she finds that ANY significant item sworn by Oscar on that stand was an intentional lie to cover the truth, she MUST reject his evidence…and in my opinion, he has done so with many critical items in this case…He has denied the undeniable…putting him on the stand in my opinion killed the defense case. Dont you agree with that??
If the fan was on (or fans were on) as OP claimed, why did he “whisper” to Reeva across the room, with the noisy fans beside him, to call the police? And without telling her why! And if Reeva knew OP was awake as he claims she did, when she got up to go to the loo, wouldn’t she have simply switched on her bedside light? – not the least to help him from fumbling in the dark. (this last point offered as a comment in an article I wrote) There are 100s of little points like this, and some weigh more than a feather.
But also I take Jason’s point: the fact that OP is lying does not prove that he intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp.
Gerrie Nel is wrong – it is a chess game. My personal view is Barry Roux is a better player. Or the rumour about the trial being “fixed” is right, which I hasten to add I can’t believe. But conspiracy theories thrive on unanswered questions, and there sure are a lot of them here.
I’m late to this blog, but congratulations Juror 13, it’s great.
How could Oscar be so wrong about his observations of the magazine rack and where he found Reeva?
Was this really PTSD compromising his memory or was he lying?
I’m baffled about this, surely this terrible image would be burnt into his brain.
If OP is a cold or hot blooded killer of RS then this is a lie.
If not, if OP believed it to be an intruder then he is either
a) a cold or hot blooded killer of an intruder he believed to be behind the toilet door and he was lying …. or
b) something spooked him and he shot … if this is the case he may or may not have heard a noise, he may have imagined hearing a non-existent noise, he may have heard something, or he might be lying after the fact to make his actions seem more like an accident.
All this has to be determined by the Judge Masipa and her team. Remember OP’s testimony is also just circumstantial evidence to be added to the other circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence.
Also note the movement of the magazine rack was after the fact “reconstructed belief” – he said originally he thought the “intruder” was about to come out and he imagined himself hearing “wood moving” – but as he was pressed and pressed again by Nel he eventually reconstructed what he thought must have happened to explain his belief he heard “wood moving” and he was about to be jumped by an intruder. (assuming you believe in OP’s testimony)
On this issue you can virtually rule out OP`s testimony. It has been proven that RS was no where near the mag rack, which was beside the toilet. There is no need to make excuses, especially when you have OP insisting that a gun can just go off in his hands and him NOT pull the trigger!
Actually, she was on top of the magazine rack. Mangena’s ballistics evidence was very compelling. OP is the one who contends she was not on it and that it was pushed over to the right near the wall.
Sorry, I meant she was nowhere near the mag before OP shot.
i am not a sound expert (tee hee, a phrase you are familiar with) but I would like to contribute anyway.
Common sense helps.
If the 2 not very loud cricket bat strikes occurred after the gunshots, then realistically, according to OP’s evidence on 15 th april, the bat strikes had to be within 1 minute of the gunshots.
Now the problem is that your client OP quite realistically claims the gunshots left his ears “ringing” and thus impaired his hearing. Now with his hearing likely affected, for a short while at least, after the shots then his hearing perception will be affected and he would not be able to make a valid and realistic claim to the sound made by the bat strikes.
So we have OP possibly misleading himself about the noise made by cricket bat strikes based on impaired hearing. Certainly, no reliability can be claimed for his claims about the sound made by the cricket bat strikes.
ps, Mr Roux. With no light on in the bathroom the darkest spot in the bathroom would be the shower cubicle dues to its shielded position in regards to light from the window. It is hard to envisage how OP could possibly claim to have checked there was no “intruder” in the shower cubicle when it was too dark for him to see.
Milk the vile scumbag for as much as you can Mr Roux.
Is there a murdered lawyers charity fund you could donate a percentage of the fee to?
The defence do not claim that the bat noises were within a minute of the gunshots, neither the defence nor the State claim the two noises were a minute apart, nor does OP claim the shooting and the breaking down of the door was a minute apart, nor does the Stipp evidence support the first and second noises being a minute apart.
Judge Masipa has to directly address the Defence’s Head of Argument and EXPLAIN WHY it is at fault in order to find OP guilty of Murder. OP CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER without Judge Masipa EXPLAINING WHY she rejects the Defence’s Head of Argument.
OP’s testimony on 15th april is what the court will use. by his own words he put himself inside the toilet with a couple of minutes of the shots. Hence the bat strikes have to be realistically within 1 minute of the shots if not preceeding the shots.
The judge will go by the evidence led.
ps The Pistorius family is worth multi-billions of dollars – there is going to be an over abundance of milk remaining even after Mr Roux and company have “milked the vile scumbag for as much as they can”.
Money is of no issue to OP if his family decide to support him. What is at issue is OPs reputation and that does appear to be truly ground into the dirt and beyond repair.
pps with regard to reputation – it is accepted that OP is and will always be RS’s killer, is and will always be a girlfriend killer. What the Judge has to decide is whether OP is RS’s murderer. To many there is no difference … killer versus murderer … but this court case is all about this distinction.
I dont know why Nel did not bring this out: how did OP reach for his gun in a holster in the ‘pitch’ dark, yet did not see that Reeva or her silhouette was not lying in the bed as he passed her to get the gun?
yes and you can equally find your way to touch for your girlfriend as yyou pass her bed!!
Yes, yet another relevant point not highlighted. According to OP he went quickly to get his gun. He must of had to use the bed to steady himself, So why didn’t Reeva pick up on that?
Even if OP is telling the truth, he is without doubt the stupidest and most cowardly person I`ve ever heard of. Imagine a grown man screaming like a woman because he heard a noise in his house.
If four people go up on the witness stand and testify they heard a woman screaming – then that is compelling circumstantial evidence (the State’s argument).
If eight people go up on the witness stand (or produce affidavits) four of whom testify they heard a woman screaming and the other four testify they didn’t hear a woman screaming but rather they heard a male crying out loudly – then that is less compelling circumstantial evidence (the Defence’s argument).
ps If it was later shown that the four witnesses that testified that they heard a male crying out loudly were OPs best buddies and had in the past lied for OP to get him off other charges etc then … Judge Masipa would have more reason to shift towards the State’s versions of events than the Defence’s version of events etc etc.
Maybe I will now wait for Judge Masipa’s judgment and explanations. What I will try to avoid is to call her a moron etc whatever she might decide. Both the State and the Defence can appeal her decision if they disagree with it.
Jason, the other witnesses who heard the male cry loudly, was AFTER the gunshots. So that is not relevant to the female heard screaming (not crying) as if her life was in danger BEFORE the gunshots. The witnesses who heard him crying did not hear any gunshots so how could that be relevant to the issue at hand?? that is why Gerri Nel did not call them to his case.
Hi Ruthy, please listen through the Defences Closing Argument (on youtube). For me they address all the points raised by the State. I can’t put it better than them. Yes it is long winded and complex and requires close attention to follow but for me there responses appear reasonable and makes sense. It is up to the Judge to decide how reasonable their case is compared to the State’s case – with the Direct evidence available (including common cause) plus the circumstantial evidence.
There is little doubt that the decision will be appealed if the main charge goes against OP – so this might be dragged out further.
One thing in support of OP’s version of events – it is direct evidence and common cause that RS did not at anytime during the evening of 13 Feb 2013 nor early morning of 14 Feb 2013, make a phone call, or text message or any form of electronic message in which she expressed any form of worry, argument, fear of OP … despite her having her phone and plenty of opportunity to make that call or attempt to make that call.
Personally I don’t give a monkeys as to whether or not OP is found guilty – it has absolutely no relevance to me – but I am interested in law and I am curious about this case. My concern is that it is very easy to become biased one way or the other about the case and it is very easy to overlook ones own bias (even my own – that is why I am ready to change my mind as I have done several times based on a better understanding of the evidence). One technique that can be adopted is to play devils advocate.
you do not know Reeva had her phone at the times you state. You have only OP’s word about the matter and that has so far proven to be utterly unreliable.
One thing that resonated with me when reading through the Defences Head of Arguments – is that even if OP is lying through his teeth – this doesn’t NECESSARILY imply he is guilty – it just means he has perjured himself. His testimony is circumstantial evidence subject to lying, errors of recall and perception errors.
The perception I had of his testimony was that he was evasive and that his testimony was constructed after the fact – it was this that biased me against him – I thought he was guilty as hell and that this was an open and shut case. This all changed when I read the Defences Head of Argument.
So I am looking for specific arguments against the Defences Head of Argument and for me saying it is “nonsense and twisted” is not a particularly persuasive argument against it. I accept my own limitations in not having the full transcript of witness statements, affidavits, court transcripts, evidence in front of me – nor the interest or time to go over it all in minute detail – this I leave to others and the Judge.
But as yet I haven’t seen a persuasive counter to the Defence’s Head of Arguments – but realise it is dependent on the details of all the evidence. For me the Defence appear to take account of a larger Mosaic of evidence – while the States mosaic of evidence is far more selective (less inclusive).
Although I am satisfied from the Defences Head of Arguments that it has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that OP intended or knowingly shot and killed RS – I cannot say the same as regards an intruder.
Hence although I would be surprised if the Judge decides OP murdered RS (knowingly and intentionally) I would be less surprised if the Judge decides he DID intend to murder the “intruder”.
I find it amusing that some people elsewhere are stating that OP “had” to shoot RS to death because RS had found out something about OP that would have been damaging to his reputation … so I think to myself what could be more damaging to ones reputation than shooting to death your own girlfriend. 😦
If we now follow the Defences Head of Arguments THEN
a) RS voided her bladder then heard OP shouting (autopsy revealed a recently evacuated bladder)
b) Pulled up her undergarment and went to the toilet door to listen to try to work out what all the commotion was about
c) Then was shot dead by OP
Hence when the police arrived urine must have been in the toilet … so why was the urine missed? … the bowl was also filled with RS blood.
There are police photos of the toilet bowl filled with RS blood. Hence the toilet was never flushed. The water should have been analysed for urine (assuming this was detectable in the presence of blood). Since there was no States evidence for this I guess the police never analysed the water in the bowl.
As a model one would imagine she kept herself properly hydrated – hence the urea content to water must have been low. So the smell could have been missed. Plus it was filled with blood plus who knows what the drains smell like or what toilet fresheners were in use.
This was both an issue with the States and Defence testimony but the defence makes more sense with the autopsy report of the empty bladder – the State should have analysed the water and if they did they should have presented the results.
so you realise she did not have enough time by his version to go to the toilet and flush.
One would expect toilet paper to be present if not flushed. It is likely she went to the toilet some while before the murder.
Refer to pathologists testimony.
ps…if OP slept for 5 hours and then etc etc etc…yet he never goes to urinate. WHY?
OP in evidence in regards to his waking up referred to Reeva as being “STILL AWAKE”, (evidence in chief)
In the States response to the Defences closing argument Nel highlighted the issue of shooting into a closed space containing what the Accused to believe to be an intruder (according to the defences case) … a human being … and I agree – I think the judgement will be based on whether the Judge believed OP intended to kill the intruder etc.
Nel also highlighted the belief that there should be consequences for killing a person … and I agree … but this is up to the Law. In the ancient law of an eye for an eye the deceased family would have the right to kill OP … but the law has moved on since those days … although some might claim not for the better.
You have omitted – whether Judge Masipa considers OP intended to kill an intruder on ‘OP’s version.’ It is not in doubt he fired through the door, but if Masipa is still considering whether he intended to kill an intruder, it means she has already discounted the ear witnesses and the State’s case. In my opinion, she will have used her independent thought to discount his version just after he says he woke up and rubbed his eyes.
At the end the Judge thanked the State and Defence teams for their assistance … and will give her judgement on the 11th September.
So it seems to me the Judges team will “independently” assess the submitted evidence and will make use of the States and Defences arguments in coming to a judgement.
OP is still mobile on his stumps.(he is not a person with no legs).
Flight from the situation in his version needed to only be a short retreat out of the bedroom through the door (with Reeva). Armed as well if he wanted.
It was not a 100 metres sprint that he needed to do.
Lame arguments are just lame.
So in evidence in chief OP refers to Reeva as being still awake.
He does not say why he said this. It is his thinking at the time of his waking that he is on about (as per his version).
How could he know if he had been asleep?
From in his bed at the time he may have reasoned this by the fan not being moved and door still open etc and that he had previously asked Reeva to move them before she goes to sleep. That she had not is reason to believe she had not been to sleep and that she had been awake (ie still awake) all the time he had been sleeping.
The problem for OP now is that having reasoned the “STILL AWAKE” status of Reeva when he slept and with no countering evidence this line of thinking HAS TO CONTINUE and everything must be consistent with this including his evidence in court.
Deviation without a sound explanation is proof of dishonesty.
He deviated in his Bail affidavit and many more times since.
It seems most have made their mind up long before the Head of Arguments and rather than engaging with the latest documents are just reproducing what they have said before. I also see some cynical attitudes towards the defence team as well as OP. Cynicism is not an appropriate approach when it comes to dealing with real court cases.
It is not just here but also on the websleuth website, while the vitriol is reserved for the youtube comments – and I haven’t explored the facebook comments. I know most here and on the websleuth site are intelligent as far as “laypeople” go so I think we have here a fair reflection of how the public respond to such infotainment.
I still haven’t found an answer as to why such court cases are televised live as I am not convinced that there is much “public learning”. At least it hasn’t yet caused any public rioting as you might get elsewhere. It certainly has made some quite emotional either one way or the other.
Anyway Shrien Dewani court case – a long running saga in British Infotainment is next up. I might give that one a miss although the general consensus is he should be strung up.
Even though I said I don’t think there has been much “public learning” (compared to public entertainment at the expense of the people connected to the case) … I, as a member of the public, have learnt a lot.
I have developed huge respect for the work of both the State team (led by Gerrie Nel) and the Defence team (led by Barry Roux) it has been a mammoth task having to deal with everything. The State have had to deal with the disaster that was Hilton Botha while the Defence have had to deal with a fairly poor appearing accused and a few experts that were made to look terrible by Nel. I also think that the Defence have been quite brilliant in making sense of all the circumstantial evidence which only can be properly viewed collectively from the summary that is the Head of Arguments – Closing Statements.
Anyway a big big thank you to Juror 13 for this brilliant website – blog and allowing everyone a fair shakes in the comments section for debate and posting of opinion.
I should say all the comments I have seen have been really civilised even if there have been disagreements 🙂
Thanks, Jason 🙂 My inspiration is always for others to use their own minds to form their opinions. I never want people to just agree with me. I’m so glad that people have come here to discuss and debate. This blog is far more interesting for me to do with you guys here as a big part of it!! I’m off to grab my coffee and work on my next post, about the Defense heads. Happy Saturday!
Juror13- I wonder about the noise that prompted OP to get his gun, did he really hear the window opening all the way up against the rim ? are there evidence photos of that opened window in the bathroom as found? was the window really slided all the way up to the rim ?? if so can you find and post the photo of the bathroom window as found? thanks.
Yep, there are pics of the window. Here is one from the Van Rensburg testimony, from March 13/14 in court. This particular picture would depict the scene as it was found. It does seem slightly short from being flush with the left portion of the window sill.
Juror13 
Obviously, the best that money could buy. At the end of all this & after reams of testimony this is the bottom line. OP’s defense is: “I heard a noise & I killed a person.” The fact that this has gone on so long & that it is at this stage of debate is because of money. A very sad situation for the Steenkamp family who lost their precious daughter.
I see that the for the prosecutions case to be accepted all other REASONABLE INFERENCES must be excluded.
For example, although Saayman said he was surprised and would have expected RS stomach to contain less content than what it did the defence had 2 experts testify differently and even though they conceded under cross examination that Saayman may in fact have been correct it shoes that his inference was not the only reasonable one that could be made.
So I was thinking, based on that, how neutral are defence experts, they are on the payroll of the accused and actually dont even have to lie, they merely have to find another reasonable inference from the evidence but that doesnt mean the states case is inaccurate or false.
Yes, any alternative, reasonable inferences are always the goal of the Defense. But one other thing to keep in mind, there is an ear witness that heard a female screaming starting at 1:56am. That could further substantiate that Reeva was awake. Nel spoke of the “mosaic” that the evidence makes. This circumstantial case has to be considered in it’s totality. When it’s broken down in to individual pieces, it doesn’t tell the same story.
No, EVDM did not say screaming. She said a loud fighting voice of a female, as in an argument.
When did I say that Mrs VDM heard screaming?
You get 100 experts and 100 quasi-experts and you will always find a few loony “experts” and “quasi-experts” who will offer an alternate hypothesis that is entirely wrong. I work in a science related field and it happens all the time.
Coincidentally, there was a TV programme on BBC in the UK on that very subject. Undercover reporters filmed experts writing biased reports. These cases were only minor so we don’t know whether they would be as unethical in serious cases such as murder. I can’t find any film on the internet but you can read about it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2652433/Expert-court-witnesses-bias-storm-Specialists-filmed-saying-evidence-defence-paying-clients-told-guilty.html
Here is retired High Court judge, Chris Greenland’s take on the case:
At the heart of this matter is the very simple proposition by the defense that OP should be excused criminal liability because he –
1. he acted out of fear
2. induced by a sound he heard in the relative security and sanctity of his own home in a relatively secure area
3.and that fear induced in him a conclusion that he was about to be attacked
4. and divested him of an appreciation of the reality that he actually was not in any danger and/or under any sort of attack
5. and induced him to fire on the Beki Cele basis of “Shoot to Kill”, i.e, when in some possibility of danger, shoot first.
Now NONE of these factors are currently supported in our (SA) law as a reason to be excused criminal liability.
a) on his own version he could only have concluded that there was an “intruder” in the toilet, as opposed to “an attacker in his personal space”
b) that intruder might well have been a street kid, as a reasonable possibility
c) you cannot just fire at an intruder on your property, i.e, as I said on Carte Blanche, you cannot just “execute an intruder”
d) before firing on another human being you MUST be under ACTUAL threat of imminent serious injury or death with no other recourse as to how to deal with the threat.
A. That is the situation even if you discard ALL the other evidence, i,e, chuck out the evidence of ALL the other witness, e.g, Michelle Burger, Johnson, the Stipps … etc … who state that they heard a woman scream ..etc …
B. So the above remains the case whatever Roux SC may succeed with “on the facts” in his argument to-day
C. it is possible that OP may escape liability …. but for that to happen the Court will have to make NEW law .. which it can do.
D. at the heart of that “new law” will be the proposition that the ordinary long established standard of the “reasonable man”, that is at the heart of our law, is modified when it comes to a disabled person.
E. this appears unlikely especially given the fact, eloquently adverted to by Prof James Grant, that, to do that, you have to gratuitously discount the fact that OP was very well aware of the circumstances in which you can fire on a human being, as evidenced by his gun licence test results.
Post Script: Roux has just said that he “genuinely believes that the trial should have been about culpable homicide” i.e, unlawful but UNINTENTIONAL killing.
The question that arises is why did the defense not tender a plea to culpable homicide?
.OP’s case would then have made a lot more sense.
This is so eloquent, cutting right to the heart of the matter, thanks for posting this.
Great post!! Thanks
Only a pleasure 🙂
A bit of interesting background about Judge Chris Greenland – he started life in an orphanage and went on to make history by becoming the first person of colour to be appointed a magistrate in the Southern African region.
I love how Oscar’s defense is based on him having been TREATED LIKE AN ABUSED WOMAN all his life. Poor Oscar, the penultimate victim. Maybe Reeva can be tried, convicted and sentenced posthumously for everything she did to Oscar, and for everything everyone else ever did to cause him to fire at a closed toilet door in the middle of the night.
That analogy from Roux was disgusting.
When Roux went to the “Oscar situation is parallel to victim of Domestic Violence” I didn’t think I was hearing him correctly. When I listened closer and understood he was making that comparison I couldn’t believe it.
CLEARLY, he /OP’s family has to know that Masipa’s biggest social justice cause has long been domestic violence. That being the case, comparing OP’s life to that DV was a REAL shocker to me.
If they were pandering to her interest in the cause I think it failed MISERABLY. I know she won’t hold it against OP but, if was her, I would be REALLY ANGRY. Talk about a slap in the face to real victims of domestic violence. I hope she mentions it’s inappropriateness in her sentencing.
The comparison sucks on SO many levels. It doesn’t even make sense. It isn’t even like comparing a person who got a jolt from a wall socket to a person struck by lightning. Roux’s comparison was more like a person who has struggled with dyslexia being compared to someone who was thrown off a cruise ship.
Stupid and idiotic.
OP reading out RS Valentine Card to OP when (as far as I can tell) it wasn’t given to OP (in RS bag that was taken by OP family members from the scene of the crime) was also rather disgusting, especially since the defence team failed to say (as far as I can tell) that OP didn’t buy RS a Valentine Card (?).
I don’t think the gift/card that she gave him was in her purse that was taken. I think it was found on the counter in the house by police. There are photos of it. He claims that she asked him to wait until Feb 14 to open it. Of course, he killed her instead.
You’ll have to read my summary of Oscar’s testimony on the gifts, it was classic bumbling Oscar. Let me look to see which day it was and I’ll point you to it…
Ok, go to Day 17, April 8th. It’s about half way down.
He tried to sneak that in thinking it may strike a chord with Masipa as she is well known for her harsh sentences on crime against women.
I dont think she was impressed, she stopped him and asked him how it is relevant.
Roux should be ashamed.
Reading sections 3 to 4 THE DEFENCE DENIES the State to consider the Facts together as a totality: saying each “proved fact” has to have one and only one reasonable inference (the states inference) otherwise that individual proved fact must be removed from the States case. They quote S v Blom.
If this is true then it would be impossible to prove any case that happened to be anything less than straightforward and carried out in plain view.
YES Clara, my thoughts exactly. Money cant buy you innocence, but it can buy a good lawyer and some time out on bail. If he is found not guilty, then surely we now can all get rid of ‘unwanted partners’ basis noise in another room coupled with heightened anxiety. Is this a precedence we want to set? I dnt thnk so.
Its interesting how Roux says OP was justified to be apprehensive and argumentative. It was Hilton Botha (police) fault. Really? Is anything seen to be bad ever his fault? How hard is it to admit just once and say, yes, its my fault, i was wrong or ill advised, i now know better. OP needs to take OWNERSHIP of his mistakes not blame others ALL the time.
This is what I think happened. Jealous row – reeva hit with cricket bat – chased upstairs – bleeding from cricket bat wound. Locked herself in toilet – screaming. Pistorius knows he has to kill her and try and cover it up. Otherwise lost career etc. gets gun – shoots until silence. Drags her out. Goes downstairs – plugs phone on charger. Gets black sacks and rope out. Formulates plan for stander to help him get body out. Wants to have body out and place cleaned up. Dr stipp arrives. New plan of intruder formulated.
The pathologist’s report said there were no blunt force injuries on her body so he could not have hit her with the bat. The only blood spatters were consistent with blood dripping from her hair as he carried her out.
It is however likely that he chased her into the toilet while threatening her with the bat and then got his gun when she refused to unlock the door and after he had attacked the door with the bat.
Reeva may have used that bat to get out of the bedroom…thus the bang marks on that door…when that failed she ran to the toilet…
From the Beeld —->
Oscar Pistorius’s aunt asked prosecutor Gerrie Nel if he “was not ashamed” at the paralympian’s murder trial in the High Court in Pretoria, according to a report.
The Beeld reported on Saturday that Lois Pistorius, glowered at Nel on Friday and asked in Afrikaans: “Kry jy nie skaam nie? (Aren’t you ashamed?),” Beeld reported.
According to the report it is unclear if Nel heard her because he was a distance away from her and had his back turned to her while he walked out of court.
On the list of people who went upstairs unattended I did not see OP himself-Clarice followed him halfway up and heard him in the bathroom.Also ,his sister Aimee-took Reevas bag from upstairs.Why were these people not on the list,as they actually did cross the scene.
Aimee and Carice were not upstairs unattended – they had an officer with them, I believe Van Staden (the photographer). Early the next morning, as Aimee and Carice got in their car to follow Oscar & the police to the station, Aimee decided that she better go back inside and take Reeva’s purse for “safe keeping” for Reeva’s family. She went back inside the house and took the purse off of the kitchen counter, which is downstairs. IMO, the police should not have let her back in.
I feel certain that you’re correct and I’m not but I could swear that Carice said that soon after she and her father got there, before anyone else was on the scene, she saw Oscar going up, knew the gun was up there and raced up to make sure he wasn’t going to kill himself? shoot them?
There was some mention of her hearing him walking on tiles – some commenters believing this may be when he switched out the phone that had been on the charger downstairs with the one that was on the bathroom floor. ( I probably read the second part here. Ha!)
I THINK she and Aimee went up there together later, austensibly to get Reeva’s purse. Cop(s) downstairs had asked where it was? Cop(s) were also upstairs?
Reeva’s bag/purse was in the kitchen, brought down by Oscar when the medics asked for Reeva’s ID, so it was easy for Aimee and Carice to just grab it. Oscar specifically said that he “did not go through the bag” when he was looking for the ID which I found rather telling. Why did he need to say that? What was in that bag!?
HOLSTER trouble for OP.
Where the Holster was found on the left side bedside drawers is a lovely bit of what is a killer for the DT.
We can only go by evidence that was given. The police were not accused specifically of tampering with that and no indication was made of it being out of place.
It’s place is thus not opposed by the DT in any of the evidence.
OP, claimed in his version, to drop it on the bedroom floor on his way to the passage after removing his gun from it. Clearly no one else , such as Reeva, could have been involved in where that holster ended up after OP dropped it.
That is the basic state of the evidence on that matter.
1/ Clearly the holster could not have accidentally been knocked from the floor and ended up inadvertently on the drawers. Only OP was present and must be intentionally responsible for its placement.
2/ Clearly OP has lied on this matter and the only REASONABLE INFERENCE that can be made in one regard is that there had to be a reasonable level of light in the bedroom at the time of the holsters placement on the drawers by OP.
OP’s version collapses on many levels from that ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE.that arises from that portion of evidence.
keen observers will remember NEL saying “good” when OP clearly spoke of dropping the holster on his way to the passage.
Good observation, David!
In my opinion as a layperson, this statement is another attempt by Roux to introduce/reinforce lots of minor convoluted detail, contradictions and repetitiveness… maybe to confuse and ‘take one’s eye off the ball’ from the bare basic FACTS. As I see it:
1. He kept a gun for personal security, close-to-hand, pre-loaded with black talon bullets and therefore had the intention to kill (not maim), if/when he ever had the occasion or desire to use it.
2. He shot 4 black talon bullets into a very confined space ‘knowing’ that there was a person in that space. Even if those bullets missed, there is a very high chance of death from ricochet’s. OP knew of this potential danger to himself if firing from the larger bathroom.
Even before OP was (apparently) aware that the toilet door was LOCKED he left the bathroom to look for Reeva, without knowing if the ‘intruder’ was still in a position to come and attack him or not.
I hope that the above two points alone, are enough to convict OP for pre-meditated murder.
That is an excellent point you have made about Oscar leaving the bathroom to ‘look’ for Reeva firstly without knowing the condition of the fictitious intruder, and secondly without knowing that the door was locked.
Though Roux gave a persuasive closing argument, more in his delivery than in the content lol, Oscar’s story is just too far fetched. The law is not on his side and I’m certain the judge will find him guilty of murder.
“We demonstrate in detail below that the crying
out loud heard by the immediate neighbours occurred at the same time as the screaming heard by the four State witnesses.”
That is a flat out false statement in the defence heads! How could what the next door neighbours hear be at the same time as the Berger/Johnson and Stipps if they did NOT hear the 1rst or 2nd set of gunshots???The screaming was in between the 1rst and 2nd set , The sounds of a man crying was AFTER he discovered what he had done…The entire chronology of calls and what the Stipp’s said surrounding their call was totally misrepresented and incorrect by Roux. I was surprised that Nel did not argue that at all…I knew that the first set of sounds heard by Merwe and the Stipp’s would come back to haunt the state’s case, because Nel never dealt with it during redirect with the Stipp’s.
Yes, it is a false statement. I don’t believe that Mrs VDM heard the first bangs, she heard the 2nd. She describes 4 bangs, silence, then shortly after a commotion, Oscar crying and cars arriving. She testified that the bangs occurred “sometime around 3am” that doesn’t mean exactly 3am.
There’s another document released by the Defence entitled “The Defence’s Response to the State’s Heads of Argument” that you might wish to add. It’s available here: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03000/Supplementary_Head_3000376a.pdf
Also, do you know if Annexures A-G of the Defence Heads have been published?
Hi Clive, thanks. I will be digging in the Defense stuff this week and will gather as much info as I can find. The post should be up by mid-week, maybe sooner.
Do you know where one can find the entire court record
What does the defence mean in the following
62) The State cannot avoid or circumvent its responsibilities by making witnesses available, particularly when they are police witnesses.
From previous points the defence appears to be making a case that the State fails to call material witnesses to support certain claims by the State and that it would be unfair to expect the Defence to call these (police) witnesses “who may accommodate the State in cross-examination”. …. that the onus is on the State to call these witnesses and not the Defence.
The Defence claims
a1) first noises were the gunshots and second noises were the bat sounds
a2) supported by Colonel Vermeulen: door first perforated by bullets then damaged by bat
a3) supported by the Stipps calling first noises gunshots
a4) States use of selective witnesses – cannot be proven that screams (= crying out loud) between first and second set of noises due to a women especially when near neighbour husband corrected wife saying it wasn’t a woman’s voice but OP …
b) Proven lying by H Botha to incriminate OP of murder.
c) States fails to call material police witnesses that could have proven falsehoods in States case – where State claims only Col van Rensburg & H. Botha from the police were present in main bedroom prior to photographer.
Defence also states
69) OP fired as a reflexive response negating the guilty act & probably also criminal capacity
70) if not a reflexive response, it was putative private defence
71) OP not guilty of culpable homicide: conduct conformed with reasonable person with similar disability acting in same circumstances.
Defence Head of Argument
91.2: In S v Steynberg (supra), the Court of Appeal referred with approval to Maharaj v Parandaya 1939 NPD 239 where Judge Feetham at 243 held: “Some innocent people meet accusations by simply telling the truth. Others, who may be EQUALLY INNOCENT of the accusation, take refuge in some invented story, because they are not satisfied that the truth alone would be sufficient …
So basically the Defence is saying that if the Accused invents a story this alone does not mean that the Accused is guilty.
Ummm, like being coerced / tortured into signing a false confession?
At the end of the day, the prosecution as well as the defence, will only call witnesses that are able to advance their respective cases. Roux knows this very well and was just making a song and dance out of it. He was merely being strategical with his complaints. Why did he not call Permural, or whatever their pathologist’s name is, who was present at the postmortem?
PART 1
Dear Mr Roux,
Your client gave evidence on 15th april at approx 1 hour 8 minutes of the first session in which he placed himself inside the toilet cubicle within 2 minutes of the shots being fired.
The words involved being “A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT”.
That bit of evidence cannot be explained away as a slip of the tongue or a mistake as he provided a context of a short time interval and reasoning that makes it all clear. it is clear and sound evidence and that court can rely upon it in regards to it being what really happened.
I also add that this piece of your clients testimony was delivered near the end of his testimony and like much later evidence it must be taken as displacing previous conflicting claims made by your client in regards to that issue or other affected parts of his evidence. I also note that your client made no indication of this being said in error or being wrong or any following claims or parts of his testimony displaced this piece of evidence.
The court will take note of this part of your clients evidence and consider it fully and appropriately.
PART 2
Applying this piece of evidence to the 2 sets of bangs.
1/ the fatal set of gunshots are a safe source for one of the sets of bangs.
2/ if the cricket bat strikes are responsible for a set of bangs being heard and they occur after the shots then the second set of bangs has to be well under 2 minutes after the first set of bangs. THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.
3/If the cricket bat strikes did make a set of noises loud enough to
be heard by ear witnesses then they can only be the first set of bangs heard.
4/ It is plausible the cricket bat strikes did not make any noise loud enough to be heard by any ear witnesses and in which case they could have occurred either before the shots or well within 2 minutes after the shots, but no later, going by this part of OP’s evidence.
5/ If the first set of bangs were the fatal gunshots then there is no explanation for the second set of bangs. We can thus discount the first set of bangs as being the fatal gunshots.
6/ There is no problem with the second set of bangs being the fatal gunshots and this is the only conclusion that can be made.
PART 3
7/ Consider that OP has only 2 minutes to enter the toilet after the shots.
8/ Common cause is that the toilet door was locked from the inside etc (not my personal view though its fairly irrelevant in regards to this point).
9/ It is common cause that OP was on his stumps when he fired the shots at Reeva.
OP cannot mess about as he has to use the phone at 3.19 am to call Stander.
10/ Unless the door was previously damaged by a cricket bat strikes prior to the shots the time appears too tight to allow him to fetch and put on his prosthetic legs to wield the bat so unless pre-damaged then the cricket bat strikes at this time have to be from when he was on his stumps as Vermeulen testified.
I think you are pushing the meaning of the statement “A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT” too far – this is perceptual time under stressed conditions after having been not long been asleep (according to OP testimony)
Please email
Me back I know what happened
Dear Mr Roux,
PART 1
Be happy as Johnson and Bergers evidence corroborates your client’s evidence in regards to shouting Help, Help, Help before what is known as the second set of bangs.
No doubt this part of the evidence will be accepted and recorded as fact to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of your client.
PART 2
Note also that OP claims memory issues in the period after the shots so may have shouted Help, help help, a second time after the shots and is unable to recall it.
Not to worry though Mrs Ng and Dr Stipp both report this , so with it being corroborated we can accept that as fact if we so wish.
Carise Stander also gave evidence of hearing your client shout help, help, help but is only able to guess at it being about 5 minutes before the 3.19 phone call to her father so it is unclear which set of help, help , help shouts she heard. Details are not clear enough to decide which way.
PART 3
The shouts of help, help, help before the fatal gunshots (second set of bangs ) clearly show planning and premeditation. No doubt this is most welcome news for OP that people agree on parts of his testimony and he that he will be rewarded appropriately.
Oscar shot Reeva earlier in the evening he was reinacting everything out ,the judge was correct the neighbours were confused it was him hitting the bat and him screaming butnthebshots were fired around 325 work out the time back to when he brought the fans in
I am reading the Defence’s Head of Arguments (up to page 62) and so far apart from one or two minor weaknesses their argument looks solid – and hence the State’s argument looks so far to be adequately rebutted. I have yet to read to the end but I am beginning to foresee that the Defence does have a proper case. I am beginning to suspect I am going to change my view to case unproven and possibly tragic accident and extreme recklessness.
I also entertained that, but that is because Nel failed to establish the correct timeline of events with the calls and sounds heard by the Stipp’s. Roux misrepresented that BIGTIME , listen to Stipp’s evidence again.
Dear Mr Roux,
Your defense witness Carise Stander has proved most helpful on a few issues.
Carise’s hearing appears to be very good as she indeed heard OP shout help, help, help, from further away from the source than anyone else.
It is also helpful that she listened at the door of the bedroom when your client (OP) was beyond the bedroom door for the sole purpose of collecting Reeva’s handbag and nothing else at all as he had no reason to do anything else.
it is noted that the state appears to not challenge this part of your clients evidence.
It is also noted that your client’s memory at the time was good enough and his mental faculties sound enough for him to fetch Reeva’s handbag. it is also noted though that OP did not give any evidence to exactly where he fetched the handbag from.
Carise claimed to hear your client walking on a tiled surface and it is noted that only 2 such areas exist beyond the bedroom door. These are the balcony and the bathroom.
Carise did not hear any sounds to account for the moving of sliding doors so the balcony option can be excluded. Additionally there is no trail indication to support his going there at this time and it is implausible for Reeva’s handbag to be kept or placed on the balcony.
We can thus conclude from what Carise heard that OP went to the bathroom at this time for the sole purpose of fetching Reeva’s handbag.
ONLY REASONABLE INFERENCE that can be made is Reeva’s handbag was in the bathroom prior to OP fetching it.
###################
Carise’s hearing does appear to be very good. Hearing his footsteps in the bathroom while standing at the bedroom door proves this.
Carise does not report hearing the sound of any fans operating.
We can either conclude that the fans were very quiet in operation or switched off.
The fans not operating is what the police stated in their evidence so Carise’s evidence can be taken as corroborating the police version.
I wish I could find the line that Carice said during her testimony that I thought was “telling” but I can’t. Nel didn’t follow up on it. Maybe someone here knows what I mean.
While describing what she first heard from her bedroom, Carice said she only heard a man shouting/screaming, talked more about a few other things then said something like, “I definitely heard a man shouting [screaming?] and I thought to myself ‘I wonder what happened to the lady?'”
What lady? If she only heard a man, how would she know at that point that any lady was involved in anything?
Yip, I got that too. I am surprised that Gerrie Nel let the Standers off so easily under cross examination.
Up to page 133. I am satisfied that the first set of sounds were the gunshots and the second set of sounds were the bat strikes. I am satisfied that the cries between the first set of sounds and second set of sounds definitely included the help help help of OP, and that discrepancies exist in the witness testimony as to whether the higher pitched cries emanated from a female or from OP … and that taken together the most reasonable explanation of the circumstantial evidence was in fact all those cries were from OP and not RS who would have been shot to death after the first set of noises.
I am done with this now. I think the Judge has to find OP not guilty of knowingly killing (murdering) RS. I am satisfied by the Defence’s Head of Arguments – which I believe to be more inclusive of the evidence and more convincing than the States.
So I am convinced that OP believed he was facing an intruder … it is up to the Judge to decide whether he intended to kill the “intruder” or not. But I am satisfied by the Defence that OP didn’t believe it was Reeva behind that door … or at least the State hasn’t proven that OP knew Reeva was behind that toilet door beyond a “reasonable doubt”.
Are you throwing out the Stipp`s testimony? That they both saw the bathroom light on, heard both male and female voices before the second set of noises? Also, what noise caused him to fire? We know that OP is not beyond making stories up, like the highway shooting, and saying anything (even denying the impossible) to avoid taking responsibility. There are just too many questions unanswered to give him the benefit of doubt for me.
It`s gonna be so interesting to hear JudgeM call this one, it`s very tough.
When you’ve read and analysed 1000s of judgements, you realise that each side almost always does a good job of advancing great evidence and painting a picture of what “really” happened. Especially in commercial cases.
I think what gets missed in these discussions is the judge is always called upon to evaluate witnesses and decide what parts of their evidence will be accepted.
There is no reason to believe Stipps did not hear a woman, and that they saw a light on.
Read the Defences Head of Arguments and the youtube defences closing argument. Their argument has THE BATHROOM LIGHTS ON at around 3:15 am. It is part of their detailed timeline.
Jason, have you considered that the 1st sounds were heard at 3:00 and that Reeva only expired after 3:22? If 1st sounds were in fact the gunshots, Reeva would not have been alive at 3:22 – see both pathologists’ evidence about when death ensued after head wound.
Walda, as far as I can recall no exact time of death was given. The paramedics declared Reeva dead when they arrived on the scene and the pathologist said that death would have occurred moments after the head wound.
William, we do not know the exact time of death, but we do know that Oscar made phone calls before carrying Reeva downstairs, the last one being to Baba at 3:22. And we know from the arterial blood spatter that she was still alive when he carried her down and that she expired on the way down the stairs.
The Stipps said they heard the first sounds around 3.00am, followed immediately by screaming, and the second bangs at 3.17am. Burger/Johnson heard screaming from 3.00am until the shots at 3.17am but Roux has twisted the evidence to place the first set of bangs at around 3.12am which is simply not so. He deliberately interchanges what were described as “screams” and “loud crying/crying out loud” (big difference) to support this. It also seems that Oscar shouted “help, help, help” both before and after the shooting: the first time mocking/mimicking Reeva’s screams and the second time genuinely screaming for help after the shooting.
It is impossible that the first set of bangs were the gunshots if they occurred at 3.00am and that is why Roux has attempted to place them later because it would mean it took OP over 15 minutes to break the door down and then make phone calls for help. Yeah, right. Maybe he went down to the kitchen and ate some left-over chicken stir fry in between ….
The timeline is actually very simple and Roux has deliberately complicated it in an attempt to muddy the waters: bangs (cricket bat) at around 3.00am followed by Reeva’s screams until the gun shots at 3.17am.
But in the end none of this detail actually matters. OP pointed the gun at a person and shot them. You cannot simply execute an intruder in your home unless your life is directly threatened. There was no evidence of any direct threat apart from Oscar’s much-repeated “which I perceived to be someone coming out of the toilet to attack me”. With what? The magazine rack?
According to SA law, a minimum of 25 years in jail for murder (application for parole possible after 12 years) and life if the judge decides it was premeditated (possible application for parole after 25 years).
Jason, It cant be as you stated and this is why:
1.Stipp’s heard the male voice yell ” help help help” a few minutes AFTER the 2nd set of sounds (Listen again to Dr. Stipp’s evidence carefully , I did 3x.) He heard it after he hung up from his call to security (2nd shots done)and went back to his balcony.
Oscar testified he yelled for ‘help’ BEFORE getting the cricket bat. So those second sounds had to be the gunshots since according to OP he had not bashed the door down yet.
2. There is no way possible that Reeva did not scream. According to Oscar’s version, when he came down the passage yelling for her to call the police and to get out of my f house, she’s a woman who must have screamed something. When the second shot missed her , she screamed as well.
3. The Burger’s would not be able to hear a cricket bat banging 177 meters away . The sound is just not as loud as gunshots.
4. No one heard anyone scream BEFORE the first sounds. But according to OP he was screaming very loud, like he never did before , repeatedly to call the police and get out of my house.
5. According to the timeline that NEL should have established, the first sounds were at about 3 am…the second shots were at about 3:12 as per Anitta Stipp who is the only witness that actually looked at her clock , was awake and noted the time around which she heard them.. If the 3 am sounds were the gunshots, what was OP doing for 19 minutes ? he called Stander at 3:19???
6. Why were the bathroom lights “ON” upon hearing the first sounds when OP insists it was pitch dark??
Granted, Prosecutor Nel failed to argue Roux’s timeline and to explain what possibly could the first sounds heard be.
Many think that OP was banging on the door for Reeva to come out or to stop her from phoning the police. when she desisted he got so angry and got the gun to shoot thru the door.However this is of course not proven.
let’s not forget that both Dr. Stipp and Burger/Johnson heard a female screaming INTERMINGLED with another male voice that was at a lower tone at the same time…meaning 2 people in a very heated argument BEFORE the 2nd set of gunshots.
If Judge Masipi decides that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that there were woman screams between the first and second set of noises – she will conclude OP murdered RS and her job (to make a judgement with explanation) will be easy. If the defence has twisted the evidence – then since all the evidence is before the judge and her team – then it will be an easy matter for her to “untwist” the evidence.
Let’s see what her judgement is.
She will find him guilty based on the transcript testimonies. I do agree with you that Gerrie Nel did NOT remove that doubt regarding the first shots maybe the real ones…he should have gone thru the stipp’s evidence to UNTWIST what the defence did. His job is to leave no lingering doubt and prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.
OSCARS INADVERTENT CONFESSION TO MURDERING REEVA.
That little peach of OP’s testimony I have been posting about is actually an inadvertent confession.
“A COUPLE OF MINUTES AFTER THE INCIDENT”.
Read my 2 previous posts on this matter on this thread.
OP has to gain entry into the toilet within 2 minutes of firing the shots.
ie Bat strikes (if not carried out before), removal of upper door panel, finding the key, inserting the key, unlocking and opening the door etc.
That is all reacting to get into the toilet as quickly as possible.
BUT WHAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE OR ALLOW TIME FOR IS KEY.
why is there a rush to break through the door with haste? it is an intruder isn’t it?
One can think of no reason to act with such haste in regards to an intruder as surely ensuring Reeva is safe should come first!
But whats that!
No search for Reeva at all.
One can ONLY CONCLUDE that OP knew it was Reeva in the toilet so there is no need to search for her.
GUILTY BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY.
Agree completely.
heads of arguments do not deal with evidence accurately or in depth.
AS the defence case was BUILT AND CONSTRUCTED to fit the prosecution evidence then it may appear to solve things until you dig deeper or take full account of the evidence.
TWISTING OF FACTS is something Roux does well though he lies as well in doing it.
2 bits of wood struck together do not make a great noise as claimed. They never provided proof as its a fictional claim.
OP does not scream like a woman as its a fictional claim and again no proof provided.
DEFENCE CASE is smoke and mirrors and that is all.
2 low sound producing cricket bat strikes (fact) do not equal very much louder and dissimilar 4 gunshots.
Upon that fact the defence case is totally destroyed.
3 first bangs were not the FATAL gunshots, and nor were they cricket bat strikes. OP knows but will not explain as it would be an admission of guilt.
Unless OP made the claim to shout like a female his defence was non existent. Hence he lies and cant produce evidence.
etc etc etc.
What amuses me is that at least half a dozen witnesses heard gunshots around 3.17 and called them in to security whereas NO ONE heard gunshots at 3.12
Yet apparently it has been proven by Roux that the shooting did not happen at 3.17
It seems to me that lots of people don’t differentiate between assertions of counsel and actual evidence
e.g. Evidence – 6 people hear gunshots
e.g. Assertion – Roux says they were cricket bats
Roux has no evidence of that
I am not going to argue with you because I am not going to repeat the Defence’s Head of Argument. Just a few questions: what woke all those witnesses up … why did neighbours phone security before the second set of sounds … when did OP use the bat and unlock the toilet door … OP started making phone calls from 3:19 onwards.
One more question to consider – how long does it take you to become alert after waking up … there was a lot of neighbours waking up early in the morning. Even OP according to his testimony had just woken up (if you consider his testimony might be true in the main). I think both the Defence & the State demonstrate some errors in the witness testimony.
These points are irrelevant as per Nel
Reeva was screaming. The lights were on. The she was shot and stopped screaming.
The Stipps heard all this.
The exact timing doesn’t matter but we know it approx from Stipp’s 16s call to Baba.
This is corroborated by the next door neighbours who were awoken by the shooting, heard no screams and got through right after Stipp.
One of the absurdities of the statement of defence is the idea that the state has not proved that the gunshots came at around 3.16 / 3.17
Defence’s own witnesses heard and called in the gunshots at the same time as Stipp!
The idea that they heard cricket bats is pure speculation on the part of ROux.
Lazy question because I am forgotten as much as I knew about this case….
It seems Stipp’s are the only ones to hear the “first noises”, whether they were cricket bats or something else?
That’s correct and Mrs Stipp knew exactly what time the 1st noises occured because she checked the clock just before that.
Yes Anitta Stipp did check her clock that ran 3-4 minutes fast at the 2 crucial times of both sets of shots.The time of the first shots are a bit before 3 am and the second shots heard by her at around 3:13..Roux wants to fool the judge to think that the 3:12-3:13 shots were the first sounds heard! LIsten to both the Stipp’s evidence that clearly was misrepresented by Roux’s closing. I am shocked that NEL did not argue that at all…Nel is also wrong as he agrees that the second sounds were at about 3:16-3:17…not so…
What I will say is that the Defence’s Head of Arguments hangs together, seems reasonable, seems convincing and seems all embracing – it presents the circumstantial evidence as conflicting with some apparent clear errors and appears to present the most reasonable explanation of it in total. In comparison the States Head of Argument seems more selective and less inclusive of the evidence (direct and indirect).
However, if the Defence has twisted the evidence – then that is beyond me to analyse because I don’t have all the transcripts in front of me, all the court proceedings in front of me … nor do I have the time to go through it all if I did. That I assume will be the approach of Judge Masipi – evidence first (direct and circumstantial) followed by assessing the States and Defence’s Head of Arguments.
I think the case will rest (in terms of the murder charge specifically of RS) on whether it can be shown whether the first set or second set of noises were the gunshots, and whether the Defence’s timeline is reasonable.
With regard the “screaming” I thought the Defence in their Head of Argument put up a convincing case of conflicting testimony – some claiming it was a woman’s voice other’s claiming it was OP’s voice, some claiming it was blood curdling screams from a woman others claiming it was crying out loud of a male voice. The Defence only need to show that witnesses confused the same sounds to cast doubt that it was a woman’s voice … and to show that it would have been impossible with regard the timelines (if you believe their timeline).
The other thing to note this happened soon after many of the witness were woken from deep sleep or falling in and out of sleep – it was around 3 am in the morning – and all this was happening minutes to twenty minutes after waking from a (deep) sleep – when in general perception is 100%.
Phone records indicated that OP was on the phone from 3:19 am and was accompanied by neighbours by 3:22 am. The last set of bangs occurred around 3:16 to 3:17 am and neighbours were phoning in from around 3:15 am and before the second set of noises.
erratum: all this was happening minutes to twenty minutes after waking from a (deep) sleep – when in general perception is NOT 100%.
On a separate matter I think it has been shown that
a) OP has behaved recklessly in the past with guns
b) has been “jumpy at night” with regard to noises (former girlfriend testimony, interview of friend who stayed in the spare bedroom and who reported that after knocking over the fan in the early morning had OP in the bedroom gun in hand asking if everything was okay, OP’s own text message of confusing the washing machine or dishwasher for an intruder)
I think it hasn’t been shown whether he was capable of murder (e.g. killing pet cats when he was a kid etc). I think there is one text message out of 1700 of RS saying OP scares her at times.
I just want to say that if Judge Masipa decides
a) that the second set of noises were the gunshots then she will find OP guilty of murdering RS.
b) that there were indeed woman’s screams between the first and set of noises then she will find OP guilty of murdering RS.
If the evidence (direct and circumstantial) is so straight forward to determine a) or b) beyond a reasonable doubt then Judge Masipa will find for the State in next to no time at all.
If the Defence “twisting” of the evidence is obvious as some believe it to be – then it will also be obvious and clear to the Judge and her team – and again she will find for the State and determine OP guilty of murdering RS.
With regard the toilet lights being on I think it is only significant if it can be shown to be on immediately before the gunshots.
After the gunshots then OP turned the lights on at some point – so that he could see where the key was, see where Reeva’s phone was – and that happened after the gunshots. So according to the Defence the Stipps saw the toilet light on After the gunshots (first set of noises according to the Defence) and not before. Can anybody tell me when OP was supposed to have put the bathroom lights on according to his testimony?
I think you`re getting very confused. Stipps saw the light on right after the first noises, this is why Roux is so scared of them. Even if that WAS the shots, according to OP`s testimony he then backed into the bedroom, searched for Reeva, yelled on the balcony, put his legs on, ALL in the dark. It`s not possible. No matter how you look at it, Stipps evidence is damning to his version and cannot be ignored.
Indeed, that is why Roux is fighting so hard against their evidence. OP is damned either way because
a) If the defense claim the shots at 3:12, Mrs Stipp saw that the lights were on at 3:02 when she woke up, that totally destroys the statement that OP shot in the ‘pitch dark’
b) If the shots were at 3:02am, what was OP doing for the next 17minutes before he made the 1st call? Concocting a story?
Jason, OP does not recall when he put the lights on because they were always ON! The fan was not on and the small fan never moved from its corner! Blinds never drawn either…. Why would Reeva run into a small toilet and lock the door if the light was not working and she was in the pitch dark?? which ever way OP tries to slice it, he gets caught in his lies.
Hi Ruth, the Judge has to act fairly and be seen to act fairly – she has to consider the Defence’s version without bias – she CANNOT presume OP is guilty – she MUST consider the Defence’s Head of Argument and MUST take it seriously (as she must the States Head of Argument). Her judgement MUST be based on best use of Evidence, she must give an assessment of BOTH the Defence and States arguments and MUST EXPLAIN why she rejects one over the other. She HAS to use a NEUTRAL form of language and stick with Common Cause items, Direct Evidence, and assess Circumstantial Evidence (including OPs testimony) with caution.
Yes, I agree with you that the Judge must be unbiased and only look at all the evidence from both sides …but if she finds that ANY significant item sworn by Oscar on that stand was an intentional lie to cover the truth, she MUST reject his evidence…and in my opinion, he has done so with many critical items in this case…He has denied the undeniable…putting him on the stand in my opinion killed the defense case. Dont you agree with that??
If the fan was on (or fans were on) as OP claimed, why did he “whisper” to Reeva across the room, with the noisy fans beside him, to call the police? And without telling her why! And if Reeva knew OP was awake as he claims she did, when she got up to go to the loo, wouldn’t she have simply switched on her bedside light? – not the least to help him from fumbling in the dark. (this last point offered as a comment in an article I wrote) There are 100s of little points like this, and some weigh more than a feather.
But also I take Jason’s point: the fact that OP is lying does not prove that he intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp.
Gerrie Nel is wrong – it is a chess game. My personal view is Barry Roux is a better player. Or the rumour about the trial being “fixed” is right, which I hasten to add I can’t believe. But conspiracy theories thrive on unanswered questions, and there sure are a lot of them here.
I’m late to this blog, but congratulations Juror 13, it’s great.
How could Oscar be so wrong about his observations of the magazine rack and where he found Reeva?
Was this really PTSD compromising his memory or was he lying?
I’m baffled about this, surely this terrible image would be burnt into his brain.
If OP is a cold or hot blooded killer of RS then this is a lie.
If not, if OP believed it to be an intruder then he is either
a) a cold or hot blooded killer of an intruder he believed to be behind the toilet door and he was lying …. or
b) something spooked him and he shot … if this is the case he may or may not have heard a noise, he may have imagined hearing a non-existent noise, he may have heard something, or he might be lying after the fact to make his actions seem more like an accident.
All this has to be determined by the Judge Masipa and her team. Remember OP’s testimony is also just circumstantial evidence to be added to the other circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence.
Also note the movement of the magazine rack was after the fact “reconstructed belief” – he said originally he thought the “intruder” was about to come out and he imagined himself hearing “wood moving” – but as he was pressed and pressed again by Nel he eventually reconstructed what he thought must have happened to explain his belief he heard “wood moving” and he was about to be jumped by an intruder. (assuming you believe in OP’s testimony)
On this issue you can virtually rule out OP`s testimony. It has been proven that RS was no where near the mag rack, which was beside the toilet. There is no need to make excuses, especially when you have OP insisting that a gun can just go off in his hands and him NOT pull the trigger!
Actually, she was on top of the magazine rack. Mangena’s ballistics evidence was very compelling. OP is the one who contends she was not on it and that it was pushed over to the right near the wall.
Sorry, I meant she was nowhere near the mag before OP shot.
Ah, got it 🙂
We could really do with an updated animated version of OP`s story. I think people will see for themselves how improbable it is.
Dear Mr Roux,
i am not a sound expert (tee hee, a phrase you are familiar with) but I would like to contribute anyway.
Common sense helps.
If the 2 not very loud cricket bat strikes occurred after the gunshots, then realistically, according to OP’s evidence on 15 th april, the bat strikes had to be within 1 minute of the gunshots.
Now the problem is that your client OP quite realistically claims the gunshots left his ears “ringing” and thus impaired his hearing. Now with his hearing likely affected, for a short while at least, after the shots then his hearing perception will be affected and he would not be able to make a valid and realistic claim to the sound made by the bat strikes.
So we have OP possibly misleading himself about the noise made by cricket bat strikes based on impaired hearing. Certainly, no reliability can be claimed for his claims about the sound made by the cricket bat strikes.
ps, Mr Roux. With no light on in the bathroom the darkest spot in the bathroom would be the shower cubicle dues to its shielded position in regards to light from the window. It is hard to envisage how OP could possibly claim to have checked there was no “intruder” in the shower cubicle when it was too dark for him to see.
Milk the vile scumbag for as much as you can Mr Roux.
Is there a murdered lawyers charity fund you could donate a percentage of the fee to?
The defence do not claim that the bat noises were within a minute of the gunshots, neither the defence nor the State claim the two noises were a minute apart, nor does OP claim the shooting and the breaking down of the door was a minute apart, nor does the Stipp evidence support the first and second noises being a minute apart.
Judge Masipa has to directly address the Defence’s Head of Argument and EXPLAIN WHY it is at fault in order to find OP guilty of Murder. OP CANNOT BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER without Judge Masipa EXPLAINING WHY she rejects the Defence’s Head of Argument.
OP’s testimony on 15th april is what the court will use. by his own words he put himself inside the toilet with a couple of minutes of the shots. Hence the bat strikes have to be realistically within 1 minute of the shots if not preceeding the shots.
The judge will go by the evidence led.
ps The Pistorius family is worth multi-billions of dollars – there is going to be an over abundance of milk remaining even after Mr Roux and company have “milked the vile scumbag for as much as they can”.
Money is of no issue to OP if his family decide to support him. What is at issue is OPs reputation and that does appear to be truly ground into the dirt and beyond repair.
pps with regard to reputation – it is accepted that OP is and will always be RS’s killer, is and will always be a girlfriend killer. What the Judge has to decide is whether OP is RS’s murderer. To many there is no difference … killer versus murderer … but this court case is all about this distinction.
I dont know why Nel did not bring this out: how did OP reach for his gun in a holster in the ‘pitch’ dark, yet did not see that Reeva or her silhouette was not lying in the bed as he passed her to get the gun?
I could easily find my way in my bedroom to the underside of my bed – in pitch dark – just by touch.
yes and you can equally find your way to touch for your girlfriend as yyou pass her bed!!
Yes, yet another relevant point not highlighted. According to OP he went quickly to get his gun. He must of had to use the bed to steady himself, So why didn’t Reeva pick up on that?
Even if OP is telling the truth, he is without doubt the stupidest and most cowardly person I`ve ever heard of. Imagine a grown man screaming like a woman because he heard a noise in his house.
If four people go up on the witness stand and testify they heard a woman screaming – then that is compelling circumstantial evidence (the State’s argument).
If eight people go up on the witness stand (or produce affidavits) four of whom testify they heard a woman screaming and the other four testify they didn’t hear a woman screaming but rather they heard a male crying out loudly – then that is less compelling circumstantial evidence (the Defence’s argument).
ps If it was later shown that the four witnesses that testified that they heard a male crying out loudly were OPs best buddies and had in the past lied for OP to get him off other charges etc then … Judge Masipa would have more reason to shift towards the State’s versions of events than the Defence’s version of events etc etc.
Maybe I will now wait for Judge Masipa’s judgment and explanations. What I will try to avoid is to call her a moron etc whatever she might decide. Both the State and the Defence can appeal her decision if they disagree with it.
Jason, the other witnesses who heard the male cry loudly, was AFTER the gunshots. So that is not relevant to the female heard screaming (not crying) as if her life was in danger BEFORE the gunshots. The witnesses who heard him crying did not hear any gunshots so how could that be relevant to the issue at hand?? that is why Gerri Nel did not call them to his case.
Hi Ruthy, please listen through the Defences Closing Argument (on youtube). For me they address all the points raised by the State. I can’t put it better than them. Yes it is long winded and complex and requires close attention to follow but for me there responses appear reasonable and makes sense. It is up to the Judge to decide how reasonable their case is compared to the State’s case – with the Direct evidence available (including common cause) plus the circumstantial evidence.
There is little doubt that the decision will be appealed if the main charge goes against OP – so this might be dragged out further.
One thing in support of OP’s version of events – it is direct evidence and common cause that RS did not at anytime during the evening of 13 Feb 2013 nor early morning of 14 Feb 2013, make a phone call, or text message or any form of electronic message in which she expressed any form of worry, argument, fear of OP … despite her having her phone and plenty of opportunity to make that call or attempt to make that call.
Personally I don’t give a monkeys as to whether or not OP is found guilty – it has absolutely no relevance to me – but I am interested in law and I am curious about this case. My concern is that it is very easy to become biased one way or the other about the case and it is very easy to overlook ones own bias (even my own – that is why I am ready to change my mind as I have done several times based on a better understanding of the evidence). One technique that can be adopted is to play devils advocate.
you do not know Reeva had her phone at the times you state. You have only OP’s word about the matter and that has so far proven to be utterly unreliable.
One thing that resonated with me when reading through the Defences Head of Arguments – is that even if OP is lying through his teeth – this doesn’t NECESSARILY imply he is guilty – it just means he has perjured himself. His testimony is circumstantial evidence subject to lying, errors of recall and perception errors.
The perception I had of his testimony was that he was evasive and that his testimony was constructed after the fact – it was this that biased me against him – I thought he was guilty as hell and that this was an open and shut case. This all changed when I read the Defences Head of Argument.
So I am looking for specific arguments against the Defences Head of Argument and for me saying it is “nonsense and twisted” is not a particularly persuasive argument against it. I accept my own limitations in not having the full transcript of witness statements, affidavits, court transcripts, evidence in front of me – nor the interest or time to go over it all in minute detail – this I leave to others and the Judge.
But as yet I haven’t seen a persuasive counter to the Defence’s Head of Arguments – but realise it is dependent on the details of all the evidence. For me the Defence appear to take account of a larger Mosaic of evidence – while the States mosaic of evidence is far more selective (less inclusive).
Although I am satisfied from the Defences Head of Arguments that it has not been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that OP intended or knowingly shot and killed RS – I cannot say the same as regards an intruder.
Hence although I would be surprised if the Judge decides OP murdered RS (knowingly and intentionally) I would be less surprised if the Judge decides he DID intend to murder the “intruder”.
I find it amusing that some people elsewhere are stating that OP “had” to shoot RS to death because RS had found out something about OP that would have been damaging to his reputation … so I think to myself what could be more damaging to ones reputation than shooting to death your own girlfriend. 😦
If we now follow the Defences Head of Arguments THEN
a) RS voided her bladder then heard OP shouting (autopsy revealed a recently evacuated bladder)
b) Pulled up her undergarment and went to the toilet door to listen to try to work out what all the commotion was about
c) Then was shot dead by OP
Hence when the police arrived urine must have been in the toilet … so why was the urine missed? … the bowl was also filled with RS blood.
There are police photos of the toilet bowl filled with RS blood. Hence the toilet was never flushed. The water should have been analysed for urine (assuming this was detectable in the presence of blood). Since there was no States evidence for this I guess the police never analysed the water in the bowl.
As a model one would imagine she kept herself properly hydrated – hence the urea content to water must have been low. So the smell could have been missed. Plus it was filled with blood plus who knows what the drains smell like or what toilet fresheners were in use.
This was both an issue with the States and Defence testimony but the defence makes more sense with the autopsy report of the empty bladder – the State should have analysed the water and if they did they should have presented the results.
So urine in the bowl would have supported the Defences case and no urine in the bowl would have supported the States case.
Actually since urea is also found in blood I think it may not have been possible to identify urine in the presence of a lot of blood.
so you realise she did not have enough time by his version to go to the toilet and flush.
One would expect toilet paper to be present if not flushed. It is likely she went to the toilet some while before the murder.
Refer to pathologists testimony.
ps…if OP slept for 5 hours and then etc etc etc…yet he never goes to urinate. WHY?
OP in evidence in regards to his waking up referred to Reeva as being “STILL AWAKE”, (evidence in chief)
If she did go to toilet and did flush wouldn’t he have heard it?
Even if you think the Defence Head of Arguments is nonsense and twisting they come up with some interesting general points.
One is the following: In the Fight or Flight panic response where does that leave a person with no legs.
With a gun in their hand for protection and two possible routes of escape?
In the States response to the Defences closing argument Nel highlighted the issue of shooting into a closed space containing what the Accused to believe to be an intruder (according to the defences case) … a human being … and I agree – I think the judgement will be based on whether the Judge believed OP intended to kill the intruder etc.
Nel also highlighted the belief that there should be consequences for killing a person … and I agree … but this is up to the Law. In the ancient law of an eye for an eye the deceased family would have the right to kill OP … but the law has moved on since those days … although some might claim not for the better.
You have omitted – whether Judge Masipa considers OP intended to kill an intruder on ‘OP’s version.’ It is not in doubt he fired through the door, but if Masipa is still considering whether he intended to kill an intruder, it means she has already discounted the ear witnesses and the State’s case. In my opinion, she will have used her independent thought to discount his version just after he says he woke up and rubbed his eyes.
At the end the Judge thanked the State and Defence teams for their assistance … and will give her judgement on the 11th September.
So it seems to me the Judges team will “independently” assess the submitted evidence and will make use of the States and Defences arguments in coming to a judgement.
OP is still mobile on his stumps.(he is not a person with no legs).
Flight from the situation in his version needed to only be a short retreat out of the bedroom through the door (with Reeva). Armed as well if he wanted.
It was not a 100 metres sprint that he needed to do.
Lame arguments are just lame.
So in evidence in chief OP refers to Reeva as being still awake.
He does not say why he said this. It is his thinking at the time of his waking that he is on about (as per his version).
How could he know if he had been asleep?
From in his bed at the time he may have reasoned this by the fan not being moved and door still open etc and that he had previously asked Reeva to move them before she goes to sleep. That she had not is reason to believe she had not been to sleep and that she had been awake (ie still awake) all the time he had been sleeping.
The problem for OP now is that having reasoned the “STILL AWAKE” status of Reeva when he slept and with no countering evidence this line of thinking HAS TO CONTINUE and everything must be consistent with this including his evidence in court.
Deviation without a sound explanation is proof of dishonesty.
He deviated in his Bail affidavit and many more times since.
It seems most have made their mind up long before the Head of Arguments and rather than engaging with the latest documents are just reproducing what they have said before. I also see some cynical attitudes towards the defence team as well as OP. Cynicism is not an appropriate approach when it comes to dealing with real court cases.
It is not just here but also on the websleuth website, while the vitriol is reserved for the youtube comments – and I haven’t explored the facebook comments. I know most here and on the websleuth site are intelligent as far as “laypeople” go so I think we have here a fair reflection of how the public respond to such infotainment.
I still haven’t found an answer as to why such court cases are televised live as I am not convinced that there is much “public learning”. At least it hasn’t yet caused any public rioting as you might get elsewhere. It certainly has made some quite emotional either one way or the other.
Anyway Shrien Dewani court case – a long running saga in British Infotainment is next up. I might give that one a miss although the general consensus is he should be strung up.
Even though I said I don’t think there has been much “public learning” (compared to public entertainment at the expense of the people connected to the case) … I, as a member of the public, have learnt a lot.
I have developed huge respect for the work of both the State team (led by Gerrie Nel) and the Defence team (led by Barry Roux) it has been a mammoth task having to deal with everything. The State have had to deal with the disaster that was Hilton Botha while the Defence have had to deal with a fairly poor appearing accused and a few experts that were made to look terrible by Nel. I also think that the Defence have been quite brilliant in making sense of all the circumstantial evidence which only can be properly viewed collectively from the summary that is the Head of Arguments – Closing Statements.
Now it is up to Judge Masipa and her team.
Anyway a big big thank you to Juror 13 for this brilliant website – blog and allowing everyone a fair shakes in the comments section for debate and posting of opinion.
I should say all the comments I have seen have been really civilised even if there have been disagreements 🙂
Thanks, Jason 🙂 My inspiration is always for others to use their own minds to form their opinions. I never want people to just agree with me. I’m so glad that people have come here to discuss and debate. This blog is far more interesting for me to do with you guys here as a big part of it!! I’m off to grab my coffee and work on my next post, about the Defense heads. Happy Saturday!
Juror13- I wonder about the noise that prompted OP to get his gun, did he really hear the window opening all the way up against the rim ? are there evidence photos of that opened window in the bathroom as found? was the window really slided all the way up to the rim ?? if so can you find and post the photo of the bathroom window as found? thanks.
Yep, there are pics of the window. Here is one from the Van Rensburg testimony, from March 13/14 in court. This particular picture would depict the scene as it was found. It does seem slightly short from being flush with the left portion of the window sill.